I suppose I should be accustomed to this kind of wild speculation by now, but I’m both alarmed and fascinated by the people who live in a world where they believe this kind of thing might actually happen.

Sunday, MSNBC’s Joy Reid spent a portion of her show discussing what would happen if Trump resisted arrest by federal marshals.

In her scenario, Mueller subpoenas Trump, requiring him to testify before a grand jury. A rebellious Trump refuses to comply. His refusal prompts enforcement by a federal judge who sends federal marshals to bring Trump in, tossing the president into federal prison until he testifies.

“Let’s say that Donald Trump decides he doesn’t want to give an interview with Mueller, but Mueller says ‘Oh, but you will.’ And he’s subpoenaed to [be] interview[ed] [by] Robert Mueller. And Donald Trump simply says, ‘I don’t recognize that subpoena.’ This is a president whose behavior is different as president of the United States. He doesn’t follow convention. Who would force him to comply with the subpoena ordering him to do an interview with Robert Mueller?” Reid asked.

“It would be a federal court judge,” former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman said.

“How would they enforce it?” she asked.

“Normally, a person who refuses to testify before a grand jury winds up being incarcerated for the time period of the grand jury which can be up to 18 months,” Akerman said. “So, one way to enforce it is to have Donald Trump taken by the federal marshals and put into federal prison until he testifies.”

This is my favorite part (RCP ctd):

“What if he refuses to open the White House door?” Reid asked, seriously. “What if he fires any Secret Service agent who would allow the federal marshals in? What if Donald Trump simply decides I don’t have to follow the law? ‘I refuse to be held under the law. No marshal can get into this White House and any Secret Service agent who defies me is fired.'”

“Well, at some point he is going to have to come out of the White House,” Akerman answered. “At some point, he is going to have to leave and the U.S. Marshals will be directed to take him into custody, bring him before a federal district court judge. He’ll be basically told that either he goes in and he testifies or he takes the Fifth Amendment. If he takes the Fifth Amendment, there’s not a problem. If he refuses to answer on the grounds that a truthful answer would tend to incriminate him he has the right to do that. If he does that, there’s no contempt. If he doesn’t do that, he can be directed to go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. End of story.”

This all reads more like the plotline of Homeland than real life. A president declaring sanctuary in the White House while the federal government demands he stands trial…these are things that happen in fascist (in the literal sense, not the internet dilution of the word) countries.

Even better (or worse?) this insane speculation comes after Special Counsel Mueller said Trump was not a target of his ongoing investigation.

Against the advice of his attorneys, Trump publicly toyed with voluntarily sitting down to chat with Mueller. He seems to have finally taken their advice, at least for the time being.

Democrats keep parroting Rep. Trey Gowdy’s assessment that if Trump has nothing to hide, he has nothing to lose by speaking with Mueller. As much as I appreciate Rep. Gowdy, Professor Jacobson has a wiser take on this issue:

“There is nothing, zero, that Donald Trump can tell Robert Mueller that Robert Mueller does not have another source for. And if there were such a pearl of information, it could be done by written questions. It does not need to be face-to-face. Because let’s face it, Donald Trump is somebody who shoots from the hip, he’s not going to worry very much about precise wording, so you can get yourself in trouble criminally with an overzealous prosecutor even if you want to tell the truth but if you do something which they will call obstruction of justice.

It would be insane for Donald Trump voluntarily to sit down and have a verbal interview with Robert Mueller’s team. Robert Mueller has put together a team of 13-14-15, however many lawyers, they are not there to walk away from this with some petty convictions of Paul Manafort and a couple of other people, and Michael Flynn. If that’s all they get from this, then Mueller will be considered a failure from the people who want Trump prosecuted. He is there for one reason and one reason only, to catch Donald Trump in something. Trump would be crazy if he goes in to a verbal back and forth with Mueller, where the slightest slip of a tongue could be used to claim obstruction of justice, or some other process crime.”

…If Robert Mueller thinks he has the legal authority to force Donald Trump to sit down with him and answer questions verbally, then let him go to court and get a court ruling to that effect. And appeal it, and take it up to the Supreme Court if need be. So if you’re forced to do it, of course you comply with what ultimately the Supreme Court says you have to do. But do not do it voluntarily.

I think the tampons were the other black Communist msnbc gal. Remember her? the one who lost her show? This one may like those earrings, too. Neither have wisdom, although they both have education beyond junior high school.

Trump is actually and literally “above the law” … while he’s President. If he’s believed to have committed a crime, he can be prosecuted like anyone else, but he must be removed from office first. That’s what that “impeachment” thing is.

Protection from legal harassment was included in the Constitution because when it was designed, the struggles between Parliament and the Crown which resulted in the English Civil War were not yet ancient history, and the Convention wanted to avoid a government vulnerable to similar showdowns.

I think there’s a good case to be made that a sitting POTUS is above the CRIMINAL law. It IS a debated and debatable proposition, but I fall on the side that says a POTUS in office is not subject to indictment.

ANYBODY, however, is subject to the CIVIL law, and I think Duh Donald has some exposure. So, apparently, does the bench in some cases now pending.

The presidential pardon power is absolute.
So when the Federal Marshals are at the door, he pardons himself for all Federal crimes he may have committed in the past or may be considered for committing in the future (as Ford did for Nixon to forestall him being hounded for followups).
And done.
You have to impeach first before any such Federal prosecution.

Does the left have no shame? This is below the subteen level of intelligence. What is the old saying about a room full of monkeys with hundreds of type writers given enough time would write all the famous books of mankind. Watching her I am no longer sure.

“And then there’s Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. The billionaire twerp who made his money the old fashioned way (by conning his friends out of the idea, mostly) is set to testify before Congress today about this tempest in a Teapot Dome involving Cambridge Analytics and everyone’s personal data. As I have said, this is a Rahm Emanuel crisis that could have serious implications. The only reason he’s in the spotlight is because the Trump Campaign successfully employed the same data tools that Obama did four years earlier – which everyone thought was just so super cool and savvy – and came out the winner in ’16. Remember and Obama’s minions openly crowed about their direct partnership with Zuckerberg himself. The only reason this is tantamount to a heinous crime is that Zuckerberg didn’t prevent Trump from utilizing the same data. And don’t be fooled by Zuckerberg’s phony mea culpa; as I linked to yesterday with that article about Jiz-Lip Chappaquiddick Stick Kennedy’s call for Facebook to be regulated by the government. It’s a backdoor attempt to wrest control of the entire internet via stealth net neutrality. Zuckerberg would want nothing better. Remember that no matter who is in the Oval Office, DC is controlled by the Democrat-Leftist-Media complex. Give them an inch and in a few short years… well, look no further than the state of the Second Amendment to see where the First will wind up. If it’s not close to it already considering the Cultural Revolutionaries on campus and elsewhere. If anything needs to be done, it’s the virtual monopoly that Google and Amazon have on what messages get out and how they are characterized that needs to be addressed. Can you say “Sherman Anti-Trust” and “AT&T breakup?”

It’s ok. Rags can occasionally be correct. There is no attorney client privilege between the client and an attorney actively participating in or conspiring with his client to violate the law. But we are treading on very dangerous ground when prosecutors allege, on the flimsiest of evidence, that the attorney has participated in a crime along with his client.

This is one of the leading Leftists that have no relation with reality. The same reality that allows a man to win a decathlon, marry a couple of times, father a few children, then after 60 years or so, decide he’s a female, take some hormones, have his genitalia mutilated and say he is a female. Then these Leftists give him some awards and call him a woman. Reality? I don’t think so.

It’s funny Hillary used to complain about two sets of rules: one for the Clintons, and one for everyone else. The pisser was is that she is so absolutely clueless that she doesn’t realize she’s on the profoundly privileged end. Can you imagine if Trump and his people got the same kid’s glove treatment from investigating teams that Clinton and her people did. What a joke.